Larken Rose on Logic

There’s a big difference between: 1) applying logic to evidence in order to reach a reasonable conclusion, and; 2) trying to mash together some lame excuse for continuing to believe whatever bogus crap you were taught when you were younger. A prime example comes from those who try to deny that taxation is theft.

“Taxation” consists of one group of people demanding the property of another group of people under threat of force. And that’s theft. Duh. But because statists have been taught that “taxation” is magically righteous (because of political rituals), they struggle in vain to distinguish it from other forms of theft. The best they can come up with is that after the theft (which they pretend isn’t), the thieves sometimes give something back. “It’s just how we pay for services!” However, NONE of the statists who say this even believe their own bullshit, as demonstrated by the fact that if you apply the exact same argument in any other scenario, they argue AGAINST it. For example, if you robbed them at gunpoint of $100, and the next day handed them a sandwich, they would NOT say any of the following:

1) “I benefited from the sandwich, so I’m fine with what happened.”

2) “How else would I get food?”

3) “This is how society as a whole has chosen to feed people.”

4) “I can always vote for a different thief next time, so it’s okay.”

5) “If I don’t like it, I can petition the thief to let me keep my money.”

6) “I would be a freeloader and a criminal if I resisted!”

7) “The only sure things in life are death and a guy taking my money.”

8) “I may not like it, but that’s how our system works.”

9) “I agreed to this by living in this neighborhood.”

10) “So you want survival of the fittest, and every man for himself?”

Statism is not the result of logic. Every argument statists make is outcome-based, illogical gibberish designed to save them from the cognitive dissonance they feel when the authoritarian mythology they were taught clashes with basic logic and moral principles.